DOCSLIB.ORG

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Thermal Design Drivers and Current Thermal Design Concept

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Thermal Design Drivers and Current Thermal Design Concept Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Thermal Design Drivers and Current Thermal Design Concept A. J. Mastropietro*, Cynthia Simmons@, William Chang@, Christine Cottingham#, Charles Baker* *NASA Goddard, @Edge Space Systems, Inc., #Lockheed Martin, Inc. August 8, 2005 1 Outline • LRO Mission Objectives • Historical Perspective • Mission Overview • Mission Timeline • Rapidly Evolving Spacecraft Concept • Lunar Thermal Environment • LRO Thermal Design Challenges • Lessons Learned from Early Modeling • Beyond LRO? • Conclusions 2 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) 2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Mission Objectives First Step in the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program LRO Objectives • Characterization of the lunar radiation environment, biological impacts, and potential mitigation. Key aspects of this objective include determining the global radiation environment, investigating the capabilities of potential shielding materials, and validating deep space radiation prototype hardware and software. • Develop a high resolution global, three dimensional geodetic grid of the Moon and provide the topography necessary for selecting future landing sites. • Assess in detail the resources and environments of the Moon’s polar regions. • High spatial resolution assessment of the Moon’s surface addressing elemental composition, mineralogy, and Regolith characteristics 3 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Historical Perspective Lunar Exploration Past and Present Clementine robotics preparing the way 1994 Ranger 1961-1965 Luna 1959-1976 MUSES-A 1990 Surveyor 1966-1968 Zond 1965-1970 Lunar Prospector 1998 ESA SMART-1 Lunar Orbiter (2005-...) 1966-1967 Selene (2007) LRO 2008 Lunokhod 1970 Apollo 1969-1972 4 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Historical Perspective (con’t) • Existing Data Sets – Earth Based Telescopes – Ranger – Surveyor – Lunar Orbiter – Apollo Photography & Laser Altimetry – Earth Based Radar – Clementine Imaging, Gravity, & Topography – Lunar Prospector Elemental Maps – Soviet Data • What is missing? Mars MOLA Geodetic Model – Uniform global geodetic model (topography, gravity, position) – Uniform global high resolution, high fidelity (color) mineralogical/compositional data – Uniform global high resolution morphology – Very high resolution (sub-meter) imaging outside of Apollo targets – Uniform global regolith characterization – Knowledge of interior of polar shadowed craters Apollo Metric Camera Coverage 5 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Mission Overview Science and Exploration Objectives Human adaptation Biological adaptation to lunar environment ) (radiation, gravitation, dust...) Topography & EnvironmentsEnvironsEnvirons Understand the current state and evolution of the volatiles (ice) Resources and other resources in context ( PolarGEOLOGYGEOLOGY Regions ICE Develop an understanding of the PreparePrepare forfor HumanHuman Moon in support of human ExplorationExploration exploration (hazards, topography, navigation, environs) When • Where • Form • Amount 6 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Mission Overview (con’t) Suite of Six Science Instruments Instrument Benefit Deliverables CRaTER Shielding Tissue equivalent (BU+MIT) constraints response to radiation Diviner Surface 300m scale maps of Temperature, surface (UCLA) temperatures ice, rocks LAMP Frosts? Maps of frosts in permanently (SWRI) “atmosphere”? shadowed areas, etc. LEND Ice in regolith Maps of water ice in (Russia) down to 1 m ? upper 1 m of Moon at 5km scales LOLA Precision, safe ~50 m scale polar navigation (3D) topography at < 1 m (GSFC) vertical, roughness LROC Landing 1000’s of 50cm/pixel images (125km2), and (NWU+MSSS) hazards and some entire Moon at 100m resources in UV, Visible LRO Addresses National Academy Science Priorities for the Moon (NRC Decadal, 2002) 7 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Mission Overview (con’t) Flight Plan – Direct using 3-Stage ELV • Launch on a Delta II class rocket into a direct insertion trajectory to the moon. • On-board propulsion system used to capture at the moon, insert into and maintain 50 km altitude circular polar reconnaissance orbit. • 1 year mission • Orbiter is a 3-axis stabilized, nadir pointed spacecraft designed to operate continuously during the primary mission. • LRO is designed to be capable of performing an extended mission of up to 4 additional years in a low maintenance orbit. 8 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Mission Timeline • Feb. 2004 – Jun. 2004 PIP • Jun. 2004 – Oct. 2004 Program Review of AO Proposals • Oct. 2004 – Dec. 2004 AO Selection • Jan. 2005 – May 2005 Instrument Kickoff and Accommodations Review • May 2005 – Oct. 2005 PDR • Oct. 2005 – Jul. 2006 CDR • Jul. 2006 – Jul. 2007 Start of I&T • Jul. 2007 – Nov. 2007 PER • Nov. 2007 – Jul. 2008 Environmental Testing and PSR • Jul. 2008 – Sep. 2008 Launch site Preps and Launch • Sep. 2008 – Nov. 2008 LRO Commissioning and Start of Science • Nov. 2008 – Jan. 2010 50 ± 20 km Science Mission 9 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Rapidly Evolving Spacecraft Concept High Gain Antenna Instrument Deck Ultra-Flex Solar Array Major Design Issues: •Bi-prop versus mono-prop, & mono-prop with 1, 2, or 3 tanks, tanks inside or protruding? •Spacecraft packaging inside or “inside out” configuration? •All instruments on the optics deck or some located elsewhere? •Separate avionics and propulsion modules or integrated? 10 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Current Spacecraft Concept Solid Works Model TSS Geometry Model LOLA LAMP CRaTER LROC LEND Diviner X (Thrust) PROP Y TANK RWAs Z (Nadir) 11 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Lunar Thermal Environment The lunar thermal environment is more severe than LEO, GEO, and Mars. It resembles the harsh Mercury environment. LUNAR NIGHT LUNAR DAY 354 Hours without Sun 354 Hours with Sun Min. Surface Temp. is -280F (-173C, 100K) Max. Surface Temp. is 250F (121C, 395K) Avg. Temp. of Lunar Surface over the course of 1 Earth Month 12 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) Lunar Thermal Environment (con’t) Lunar Orbit Environment Parameters Hot Cold Nom Direct Solar [W/m2] 1420 1280 1368 Albedo 0.13 0.06 0.073 IR Max. [W/m2] 1320 1226 1268 (subsolar peak) IR Min. [W/m2] 5.2 5.2 5.2 (dark side) Lunar IR Emission as a Function of Beta Angle q”IR = [(C1-C2)*cos(β)*cos(θ)] + C2 where: q”IR = IR flux from Lunar surface C1 = peak flux at subsolar point C2 = minimum flux emitted from shaded Lunar surface β = Beta angle θ = Angle from subsolar point 13 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Thermal Design Challenges LRO Orbit Parameters: Type Lunar Circular Altitude 50±20km Inclination 90° (polar orbit) Orbit Period 113 minutes Full Sun Orbits Beta 90.0° to 76.4° (55 days/yr) Eclipsed Orbits Beta 76.4° to 0.0° (310 days/yr) Max. Eclipse 48 minutes (beta 0°) Beta 0o LRO Bounding Thermal Cases: Beta 0° is the Hot Op Case • Most severe IR loading • Zenith facing radiators flip through sun • Instrument apertures “see” sun near dawn and dusk 74°off bore site at 70 km Beta 90° is the Cold Op Case • Zenith facing radiators look at deep space • Minimal IR loading -Y Sun Pointing Safehold Attitude • Zenith facing radiators can be edge on to the moon Beta 90o 14 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Thermal Design Challenges (con’t) • Class C mission Æ “single string” design for components – Cost, size, power, and mass constraints drive the thermal design to be a passive thermal design Æ challenge is that the lunar thermal environment is NOT benign • Radiator placement severely limited – Nadir pointing surfaces have too high of an IR loading to function as a radiator, especially at low Beta angles – Ram and wake surfaces also experience high IR loading at low Beta angles, combined with UV loading – Zenith surfaces are logical radiator locations, however, they also have a view of an atypically hot solar array • Solar array thermal design – Must take into consideration that the front side will have solar heating while at the same time the backside will receive lunar IR nearly equivalent to the solar flux in the worst hot operational case 15 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) LRO Thermal Design Challenges (con’t) • Instrument optical bench is its own radiator – Instrument thermal control, in general, is achieved thru isolation from the lunar environment and by using passive means to conduct heat to a zenith radiator; note, however, some instruments require conductive isolation from optical bench, whereas some require conductive coupling to bench – Heaters on nadir facesheet at instrument interfaces are linearly coupled to a zenith facesheet which has a view to space Æ makes it difficult to minimize heater power in the worst case cold thermal conditions – Since optical bench size also has to be minimized due to mass constraints, it’s difficult to minimize thermal gradients and meet stability requirements • Thermal coatings requirements on instruments – Thermal design challenge for those instruments that require high emittance coatings (i.e., DIVINER) which also have direct and continuous views to the lunar surface – Several instruments with views to the sun have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bolden Testimony
    HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL PRESENTED BY WITNESS November 17, 2011 Statement of The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr. Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration before the Subcommittee on Science and Space Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation U. S. Senate Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the outlook for NASA’s human space flight program. This has been a remarkable year, as we have completed assembling and outfitting of the U.S. On-orbit Segment (USOS) of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to focus on full utilization of the Station’s research capabilities; taken key steps in moving forward into the future of exploration beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO); celebrated the 50 th anniversary of human spaceflight; and witnessed the successful conclusion of the historic Space Shuttle Program. We are also pleased with the progress our industry partners have made in developing an American capability to transport cargo and eventually astronauts to the ISS, and end the outsourcing of this work to foreign governments. More importantly, this will add a critical level of redundancy for transporting cargo and crew to the ISS. A robust transportation architecture is important to ensuring full utilization of this amazing research facility. Enabling commercial crew and cargo transportation systems in LEO allows NASA to focus on developing its own systems for sending astronauts on missions of exploration beyond LEO. This split between commercial and Government systems allows for a cost effective approach to promote a broad base for human exploration by the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Updates NAC Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee Meeting | March 19, 2020
    Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Updates NAC Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee Meeting | March 19, 2020 Christopher Baker NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Executive National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1 CHANGING THE PACE OF SPACE Through Small Spacecraft Technology and Flight Opportunities, Space Tech is pursuing the rapid identification, development, and testing of capabilities that exploit agile spacecraft platforms and responsive launch capabilities to increase the pace of space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2 THROUGH SUBORBITAL FLIGHT The Flight Opportunities program facilitates rapid demonstration of promising technologies for space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce through suborbital testing with industry flight providers LEARN MORE: WWW.NASA.GOV/TECHNOLOGY Photo Credit: Blue Origin National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3 FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES BY THE NUMBERS Between 2011 and today… In 2019 alone… Supported 195 successful fights Supported 15 successful fights Enabled 676 tests of payloads Enabled 47 tests of payloads 254 technologies in the portfolio 86 technologies in the portfolio 13 active commercial providers 9 active commercial providers National Aeronautics and Space Administration Numbers current as of March 1, 2020 4 TECHNOLOGY TESTED IN SUBORBITAL Lunar Payloads ISS SPACE IS GOING TO EARTH ORBIT, THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND Mars 2020 Commercial Critical Space Lunar Payload Exploration Services Solutions National Aeronautics and Space Administration 5 SUBORBITAL INFUSION HIGHLIGHT Commercial Lunar Payload Services Four companies selected as Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CPLS) providers leveraged Flight Opportunities-supported suborbital flights to test technologies that are incorporated into their landers and/or are testing lunar landing technologies under Flight Opportunities for others.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp
    Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp AIAA Space Mission System 2019-2020 Virginia Tech Aerospace Engineering Faculty Advisor : Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Team Members : Olivia Arthur, Bobby Aselford, Michel Becker, Patrick Crandall, Heidi Engebreth, Maedini Jayaprakash, Logan Lark, Nico Ortiz, Matthew Pieczynski, Brendan Ventura Member AIAA Number Member AIAA Number And Signature And Signature Faculty Advisor 25807 Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Brendan Ventura 1109196 Matthew Pieczynski 936900 Team Lead/Operations Logan Lark 902106 Heidi Engebreth 1109232 Structures & Environment Patrick Crandall 1109193 Olivia Arthur 999589 Power & Thermal Maedini Jayaprakash 1085663 Robert Aselford 1109195 CCDH/Operations Michel Becker 1109194 Nico Ortiz 1109533 Attitude, Trajectory, Orbits and Launch Vehicles Contents 1 Symbols and Acronyms 8 2 Executive Summary 9 3 Preface and Introduction 13 3.1 Project Management . 13 3.2 Problem Definition . 14 3.2.1 Background and Motivation . 14 3.2.2 RFP and Description . 14 3.2.3 Project Scope . 15 3.2.4 Disciplines . 15 3.2.5 Societal Sectors . 15 3.2.6 Assumptions . 16 3.2.7 Relevant Capital and Resources . 16 4 Value System Design 17 4.1 Introduction . 17 4.2 Analytical Hierarchical Process . 17 4.2.1 Longevity . 18 4.2.2 Expandability . 19 4.2.3 Scientific Return . 19 4.2.4 Risk . 20 4.2.5 Cost . 21 5 Initial Concept of Operations 21 5.1 Orbital Analysis . 22 5.2 Launch Vehicles . 22 6 Habitat Location 25 6.1 Introduction . 25 6.2 Region Selection . 25 6.3 Locations of Interest . 26 6.4 Eliminated Locations . 26 6.5 Remaining Locations . 27 6.6 Chosen Location .
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Download
    NASA Technical Memorandum 106110 Comparisons of Selected Laser Beam Power Missions to Conventionally Powered Missions John M. Bozek National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio and Steven R. Oleson, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Mark W. Stavnes Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Lewis Research Center Group Brook Park, Ohio Prepared for the First Annual Wireless Power Transmission Conference sponsored by the Center for Space Power, Texas A&M University San Antonio, Texas, February 23-25, 1993 NASA COMPARISONS OF SELECTED LASER BEAM POWER MISSIONS TO CONVENTIONALLY POWERED MISSIONS John M. Bozek National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135 and Steven R. Oleson, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Mark W. Stavnes Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Lewis Research Center Group Brook Park, Ohio 44142 SUMMARY Earth-based laser sites beaming laser power to space assets have shown benefits over competing power system concepts for specific missions. Missions analyzed in this report that show benefits of laser beam power are low-Earth-orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous-Earth-orbit (GEO) transfer, LEO to low-lunar-orbit (LLO) cargo missions, and lunar-base power. Both laser- and solar-powered orbit transfer vehicles (OTV's) make a "tug" concept viable, which substantially reduces cumulative initial mass to LEO in comparison to chemical propulsion concepts. In addition, electric propulsion OTV's powered by a laser beam have shorter trip times to and from GEO than do competing OTV's powered solely by the Sun. A round-trip savings of 3 months was calculated for the use of a laser OTV tug instead of a solar OTV tug.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Design for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
    AAS 07-057 Mission Design for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Mark Beckman Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 595 29th ANNUAL AAS GUIDANCE AND CONTROL CONFERENCE February 4-8, 2006 Sponsored by Breckenridge, Colorado Rocky Mountain Section AAS Publications Office, P.O. Box 28130 - San Diego, California 92198 AAS-07-057 MISSION DESIGN FOR THE LUNAR RECONNAISSANCE ORBITER † Mark Beckman The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will be the first mission under NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration. LRO will fly in a low 50 km mean altitude lunar polar orbit. LRO will utilize a direct minimum energy lunar transfer and have a launch window of three days every two weeks. The launch window is defined by lunar orbit beta angle at times of extreme lighting conditions. This paper will define the LRO launch window and the science and engineering constraints that drive it. After lunar orbit insertion, LRO will be placed into a commissioning orbit for up to 60 days. This commissioning orbit will be a low altitude quasi-frozen orbit that minimizes stationkeeping costs during commissioning phase. LRO will use a repeating stationkeeping cycle with a pair of maneuvers every lunar sidereal period. The stationkeeping algorithm will bound LRO altitude, maintain ground station contact during maneuvers, and equally distribute periselene between northern and southern hemispheres. Orbit determination for LRO will be at the 50 m level with updated lunar gravity models. This paper will address the quasi-frozen orbit design, stationkeeping algorithms and low lunar orbit determination. INTRODUCTION The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first of the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program’s (LPRP) missions to the moon.
    [Show full text]
  • Cislunar Tether Transport System
    FINAL REPORT on NIAC Phase I Contract 07600-011 with NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, Universities Space Research Association CISLUNAR TETHER TRANSPORT SYSTEM Report submitted by: TETHERS UNLIMITED, INC. 8114 Pebble Ct., Clinton WA 98236-9240 Phone: (206) 306-0400 Fax: -0537 email: [email protected] www.tethers.com Report dated: May 30, 1999 Period of Performance: November 1, 1998 to April 30, 1999 PROJECT SUMMARY PHASE I CONTRACT NUMBER NIAC-07600-011 TITLE OF PROJECT CISLUNAR TETHER TRANSPORT SYSTEM NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (Firm Name, Mail Address, City/State/Zip Tethers Unlimited, Inc. 8114 Pebble Ct., Clinton WA 98236-9240 [email protected] PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Robert P. Hoyt, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The Phase I effort developed a design for a space systems architecture for repeatedly transporting payloads between low Earth orbit and the surface of the moon without significant use of propellant. This architecture consists of one rotating tether in elliptical, equatorial Earth orbit and a second rotating tether in a circular low lunar orbit. The Earth-orbit tether picks up a payload from a circular low Earth orbit and tosses it into a minimal-energy lunar transfer orbit. When the payload arrives at the Moon, the lunar tether catches it and deposits it on the surface of the Moon. Simultaneously, the lunar tether picks up a lunar payload to be sent down to the Earth orbit tether. By transporting equal masses to and from the Moon, the orbital energy and momentum of the system can be conserved, eliminating the need for transfer propellant. Using currently available high-strength tether materials, this system could be built with a total mass of less than 28 times the mass of the payloads it can transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Requirements
    Status Briefing of LRO Pre-Selection Formulation Efforts GSFC RLEP Office, Code 430 James Watzin – RLE Program Manager Craig Tooley – LRO Project Manager December 22, 2004 http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov The Vision for Space Exploration 2 The Role of LRO • The Vision for Space Exploration outlined a robust robotics program beginning with a 2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission • The Vision for Space Exploration outlined broad areas of content for the robotics program Site Selection: • Develop detailed terrain and hazard maps at landing site scales • Characterize radiation, dust, thermal, and partial gravity environment • Identify potential water/ice resources and validate with ground truth measurements Life Sciences: • Demonstrate radiation shielding capabilities for human systems • Characterize lunar environment and its biological impacts Resources: • Characterize lunar regolith for resource assessment • Demonstration of ISRU package for water/ice • Demonstration of oxygen extraction Technology Maturation: • Demonstrate precision landing • Demonstrate prototype h/w and s/w for monitoring/mitigating space environment effects on humans Infrastructure Emplacement: • Communication systems • Navigation systems • LRO will make a substantial impact in many areas 3 LRO Schedule “…Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities.” LRO Mission Schedule Supports 2008 LRD from The Vision for Space Exploration Ver. 0.2 11/23/04 Task 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Confirmation MOR FOR/ORR LRO Launch LRO Mission Milestones AO Release IAR IPDR ICDR IPSR PSR AO Sel.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Weather ± Physics and Effects Volker Bothmer and Ioannis A
    Space Weather ± Physics and Effects Volker Bothmer and Ioannis A. Daglis Space Weather ± Physics and Effects Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Dr Volker Bothmer Dr Ioannis A. Daglis Institute for Astrophysics National Observatory of Athens University of GoÈttingen Athens GoÈ ttingen Greece Germany SPRINGER±PRAXIS BOOKS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SUBJECT ADVISORY EDITOR: John Mason B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. ISBN 10: 3-540-23907-3 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York ISBN 13: 978-3-540-23907-9 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is part of Springer-Science + Business Media (springer.com) Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra®e; detailed bibliographic data are available from the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de Library of Congress Control Number: 2006921904 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. # Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2007 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speci®c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 HOLD for RELEASE UNTIL PRESENTED by WITNESS July 10, 2019 Statement of William H. Gerstenmaier Associate Administrator For
    HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL PRESENTED BY WITNESS July 10, 2019 Statement of William H. Gerstenmaier Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations National Aeronautics and Space Administration before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U. S. House of Representatives Chairwoman Horn and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the future of the International Space Station (ISS) and NASA’s long-term vision for use of low-Earth orbit (LEO). NASA will send the first woman and the next man to the South Pole of the Moon by 2024 and develop a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028. We have designated this program “Artemis” – Apollo’s twin sister and goddess of the Moon in Greek mythology. NASA’s Artemis program will build a sustainable, open architecture that returns humanity to our nearest neighbor. We are building for the long term, and this time are going to the Moon to stay. We are designing an open, durable, reusable architecture that will support deep space exploration for decades to come. Sustainability requires reusable systems and partnerships from across the commercial sector and around the world. The Agency is incentivizing speed and drawing on commercial and international partners as it looks to land humans on the Moon within five years. NASA is completing development of both the Orion spacecraft that will carry humans to lunar orbit, and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will launch Orion. We are pressing forward toward the Artemis 1 mission, an uncrewed test flight of Orion and SLS as an integrated system around the Moon.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Technology Mission Directorate
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Technology Mission Directorate Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Presented by: Dr. Michael Gazarik Associate Administrator, STMD April 2014 www.nasa.gov/spacetech Space Technology… …. an Investment for the Future • Enables a new class of NASA missions Addresses National Needs beyond low Earth Orbit. A generation of studies and reports (40+ since 1980) document the need for • Delivers innovative solutions that regular investment in new, dramatically improve technological transformative space technologies. capabilities for NASA and the Nation. • Develops technologies and capabilities that make NASA’s missions more affordable and more reliable. • Invests in the economy by creating markets and spurring innovation for traditional and emerging aerospace business. • Engages the brightest minds from academia in solving NASA’s tough technological challenges. Value to NASA Value to the Nation Who: The NASA Workforce Academia Small Businesses The Broader Aerospace Enterprise 2 Major Highlights The PhoneSat 2.5 mission will be launched as a rideshare on SpaceX vehicle, to demonstrate command and control capability of operational satellites. NASA engineers successfully hot-fire Successfully fabricated a 5.5- tested a 3-D printed rocket engine meter composite cryogenic injector at NASA GRC, marking one of propellant tank and testing at the first steps in using additive Boeing’s facility in Washington manufacturing for space travel. and will continue testing at NASA MSFC this year. At NASA MSFC, the largest 3-D printed rocket engine ISS Fluid SLOSH experiment launched on injector NASA has ever Antares /Orb-1 on Dec. 18, 2014 and now The Flight Opportunities program tested blazed to life at an aboard ISS for testing that will be used to enabled flight validation of 35 engine firing that generated a improve our understanding of how liquids technologies that were tested in record 20,000 pounds of behave in microgravity space-like environments on four thrust.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening the Solar System to a Broad Community at Lower Cost
    Staehle R., et al. (2013): JoSS, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 161-186 (Peer-reviewed Article available at www.jossonline.com) www.DeepakPublishing.com www.JoSSonline.com Interplanetary CubeSats: Opening the Solar System to a Broad Community at Lower Cost Robert L. Staehle1, Diana Blaney1, Hamid Hemmati1, Dayton Jones1, Andrew Klesh1, Paulett Liewer1, Joseph Lazio1, Martin Wen-Yu Lo1, Pantazis Mouroulis1, Neil Murphy1, Paula J. Pingree1, Thor Wilson1, Brian Anderson2, C. Channing Chow II2†, Bruce Betts3, Louis Friedman3, Jordi Puig-Suari4, Austin Williams4, and Tomas Svitek5 1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA USA 2 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA USA 3 The Planetary Society, Pasadena, CA USA 4 California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, CA USA 5 Stellar Exploration, Inc., San Luis Obispo, CA USA Abstract Interplanetary CubeSats could enable small, low-cost missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). This class is defined as having a mass of <~10 kg, cost of <$30 M, and mission duration of up to five years. Over the coming decade, a stretch of each of six distinct technology areas, creating one overarching architecture, could enable com- paratively low-cost Solar System exploration missions with capabilities far beyond those demonstrated in small satellites to date. The six technology areas are (1) CubeSat electronics and subsystems extended to operate in the interplanetary environment, especially radiation and duration of operation; (2) optical telecommunications to enable very small,
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States
    Hold for Release Until Presented by Witness National Aeronautics and Space Administration September 30, 2020 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Statement by: James F. Bridenstine Administrator 116th Congress UNTIL PRESENTED BY WITNESS Sept. 30, 2020 Statement of James Bridenstine Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation U.S. Senate Overview Chairman Wicker and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss NASA's Fiscal Year 2021 budget request. We are proposing a budget of $25 billion, an increase of 12 percent over our request for FY 2020. This budget both reinforces our innovative human space exploration program and maintains strong support for NASA science, aeronautics, and technology research. This investment, coupled with the unmatched talent of NASA’s workforce, will enable America’s continued leadership in space, propelling the United States toward a new era of technical achievement and scientific discovery. Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, I would like to assure you that keeping the NASA workforce safe has been our highest priority during this challenging period. Since mid-March, more than 90 percent of our workforce has been in a telework status, and our employees have continued to perform NASA’s important missions with distinction. Only a limited number of employees performing mission-essential work for the protection and safe operation of critical Agency infrastructure and a few select missions (e.g., Commercial Crew Program Demo-2 launch and Mars Perseverance launch preparations) were authorized to be on site. The amazing productivity of our workforce during the pandemic has proven that more work could be done remotely in the future.
    [Show full text]